I don't think Christianity survives without parochialism. People follow their culture, and mainstream culture does nothing to encourage Christianity. Consequence: Of of my friends from high school and college were born Christian, I'm the only active believer, and that's after a 10-year agnostic period.
If you don't own the mainstream culture, you need a subculture that can serve as a separate point of reference. The Amish, Middle Eastern Christians, and Jews have survived like this for centuries. It was the state of whole church until Constantine.
It's a model that works, and the only model that works under current conditions.
I understand what you are trying to say, but MAGA is NOT whit pride. Its strength in the recent election was largely in the inclusion of Blacks and Hispanics, and Trump's administration has more women in key positions than Biden's ever had. If one insists on finding white pride, look to leadership in the Uniparty. WASPs outnumber women and Blacks even in elected Democrats and RINOs in leadership posts in both the Senate and House.
The white pride examples paraded in the press are mostly low-class neo-Nazi freaks, a true minority. The illegal migrants that MAGA want rid of are the gang members and street people who ugly up our cities. The legal immigrants are for the most part welcomed. They are the ones that want to be Americanized. Indians and and Arabs legal immigrants are mostly well to do, educated, and high-achievers, unlike the radical Muslims, gang bangers, and street people transferees from their origin slums into burgeoning American slums.
I would add though that legal immigrants go heavily leftist and have in group preferences that exclude natives who they may subtly and not so subtly despise. Legal really doesn’t mean wise. Other than that thank you, MAGA really, really isn’t racist, the left just needs it to be.
Looking at other English speaking western countries which still have larger white majorities (Canada, Australia, NZ, UK), suggests going back a few decades demographically would not get us back to high functioning institutions. The very white elites in those countries are largely extractive, basically burning through the capital built by others with little interest in investing in their communities. Incredible housing price manipulation, one of their primary motivations for pushing immigration. While the prospects for younger people decline, they are still expected to celebrate the sense of community, compassion and common purpose that their country pretends to offer them.
I mean nail on the head, at some point Anglo Saxon leadership decided they basically hate Anglo Saxon people. I mean we say “white” but it’s really WASPs and ersatz WASPs of various ethnicities, not even necessarily “white”. Early Gaddafi actually cared more about the common Libyan than our leadership at the time (I know it sounds nuts but he wasn’t always crazy, he pulled a Kuwait early on turning oil wealth into schools, infrastructure, and education). We then decided to rationalize being American as not being instantiated in a culture or people which is why we need “immigrants” (functional slaves) to replace “decadent” Americans. Vivek getting trashed over this was the first sign of an immune system response in a long time.
"The concept of the public interest is effectively dead in America." 100% And from that, I think, flows the importance of increasing the ownership stake one has in his own life. Where we works, where he lives, what he consumes, his culture, everything. You can't outsource it to the "public interest" or mass society. For none exists.
I don't have an overarching strategy, but I have lived in the most diverse county in the United States over the past 30 years. The Christian ethic still holds. Love your neighbor. Work for the benefit of the country/city. There is no magic bullet. A nation that doesn't have a unifying ethic will fall.
If you live in the most diverse county in America, its government and civic life, even its legal system, likely operates on the basis of DEI, which is hardly the Christian ethic.
You are correct. Maybe I wasn’t clear. We as Christians need to live out the Christian ethic. I did not mean that the area has a Christian ethic. I live my life without a Christian ethic. I'm not here to change the world but as a witness for Christ in my words and deeds. I am very involved in my church and my local community. I attempt to preach the gospel and make disciples. This is a very dark area, and it needs the light.
As Yuval Levin said in “Fractured Republic” 📕 we need to let go of the Nostalgia.
“They hearken to a living memory so powerfully present for many Americans as to seem like the natural state of American life. And they suggest that a return to that state—that getting back on that track—should be the goal of American politics.”
He challenges liberals and conservatives equally to draw ✍️ on the nations current resources, using the best IDEAS 💡 from their respective camps.
“An extraordinary number of the most prominent works of social analysis in recent years have followed the same pattern—positing the postwar decades as a standard of excellence against which to assess how America is doing by one important measure or another.”
Page 19
“That time existed. It was not a dream. But it was not the paradise that some now suggest, and it was made possible by a set of circumstances—historical, social, economic, political, and cultural—that are no longer with us.”
Page 19
Liberals bemoan the death of Unions, conservatives the death of society conservative values.
Yuval appeals for us to work locally (Benedict Option?), and find common ground where possible.
Yuval Levin
Fractured Republic
-Renewing Americas social compact in an age of individualism
I appreciate the attitude but oh my gosh is this a dry hole. The best “ideas” of both can only be judged by an external standard (who says what is best?), that NOBODY is prepared to agree on and if they did in any numbers they’d probably be wrong. In the meantime only one group is being asked to make concessions.
Great, now if we can convince the newcomers to stop showing in group preference and adopt this point of view we’ll be fine.
Pluralistic societies can work, as we see in the deeply “unpopular” but weirdly high functioning Austrian-Hungarian and British Empires. Both of which were incidentally more democratic than is commonly supposed. But it worked because if there ever was a conflict between local “norms” and to use the British as an example, English common law, English common law won. That part wasn’t up to a vote.
The problem as I see it, is that every group is allowed to advocate for its interests, even at the cost of others, except for one, and it’s not exactly the one you think. Next, these groups also have cultural attitudes on everything from law and order to social norms, that other groups will find intolerable.
Indians erecting a giant statue of a demon god should bother you. East Asians and Latins voting for more “familiar” forms of local government with attendant corruption should bother you.
Of course my answer will please no one but I believe it’s the only one. Our only real duty is to do what we believe God would wish us to. And it might not be what you think. It might actually be fighting, it might actually be yielding (Jeremiah was called basically a collaborator when he got the word that the invasion was coming and there was no fighting it). But I’m hard pressed to believe it ever entails thinking that idolatry, corruption, and governmental bullying is “just as good” because “America is always changing”.
NB I’m not saying you’re saying this, just that I think we’re in for a rougher ride than you might think.
Hey I have it on good authority that this is normal change America has went through before and my local mall selling Santa Muerte statues is just totally normal. Where would America be without Irish civic corruption, Italian organized crime, German founded socialist parties? Immigration has always totally worked out. NB for anyone taking this too seriously I have immigrant ancestry too however I also recognized that they moved because they preferred living in the society created by my British ancestors.
Excellent post. Rene Girard belongs with Nietzsche in the discussion of ressentiment.
The left relies on a relentless rhetorical sleight-of-hand in discussing pluralism: "Demographic diversity is a fact, THEREFORE you're not allowed to pass laws that reflect any values that we don't like." They go back and forth between fact and value as they see fit.
It goes to deep questions about democracy, liberalism and legitimacy: if there's one atheist kid in a 99% Christian public school, can that kid's parents and lawyers eliminate school prayer for everyone? Liberalism says yes (Engel v. Vitale). And yet, they still try to claim that this is "democratic." Curious!
Right from Day One, this was an issue in the U.S. IIRC, the various non-established religious groups agitated against the then-established churches in the thirteen states. Presbyterians, Methodists, Quakers, Catholics, Jews, etc. may not have agreed on anything, but they all objected to paying taxes to support the state church (Congregationalism in New England, Anglicanism in the mid-Atlantic and South).
The current Supreme Court case on queer books in public elementary schools (Mahmoud v. Taylor) is an interesting case. Muslims, Catholics, etc. all agree that they don't want gender propaganda given to their young children in public schools. This can be overstated - most nonwhite groups still vote majority Dem or supermajority Dem - but occasionally pluralism can be used to achieve conservative ends.
Of course this leads to each side blocking the other. The Leftists overreached with transgender and are now paying the price nationally. DEI is taking well deserved hits.
The nation can no longer modify the constitution, as there can be no 3/4 agreement on anything.
What a thoughtful post, with a solid balance between the descriptive and prescriptive. The issue with those of us who have similar views is that we tend to get squashed in the middle. We are not moderates nor a pretentious third way. We are not very exciting to most. It’s hard to gain clicks and excite people with this view. People think we are completely non-combative but that isn’t always the case.
All good points. Only thing I'm inclined to disagree on is tolerating the existence of 90-foot Hindu statues. I think it's good and proper to fight these things. I'd go to the mat to fight this in my local community, in a way that I wouldn't over a mosque. Pick your battles. Maybe that means we as a society can't erect any 90-foot statues, which sounds like a good rule to me.
In my estimation the average person has never been built to adjust to social changes as rapid as ours within the span of a single lifetime, especially when those changes come after age 30 or 40. Even most college graduates are this way. So I don't think there's much hope for the median person here. Just try to be significantly better than the median and to be a trustworthy leader who can guide the many people around you that are struggling to adjust, who probably can't do it under their own power.
Maybe spend some time absorbing that meme image: "The world you were born in no longer exists."
I think you and I might disagree on some individual policies, and as a Roman Catholic I believe caring for immigrants and refugees is my religious duty, but I agree with almost everything in your newsletter. Most especially, the disastrous impact of the combination of oligarchic libertarian economics and progressive antagonism toward traditional moral and legal standards.
This country has lost its civic sense of duty and sacrifice. Progressive moral relativism has led to Trumpian nihilism. We must find a way to accept and even celebrate our new diversity while expecting all our citizens, old and new, to put the good of the Republic ahead of their own selfish interests.
Meh. It seems no matter how much of GDP is allocated by the government, how many pages the US Code is, how many governmental functions are assumed by the federal government and concentrated in the executive, "libertarian economics" will always be blamed.
I know right? I’m not even libertarian (if I was English I’d say I was just an old Tory), but I know there’s nothing libertarian about government and industry locked in a mutual Patty Hearst spiral.
I’m Catholic too and don’t think caring for migrants should include having the federal govt spend billions handing out food and housing subsidies to people who just walked across the southern border. There are political, human and practical limits to housing illegal immigrants or asylum seekers etc in hotels in Midtown Manhattan
Why should we have to accept that pluralism is here to stay and that Christians have to accept it?
Why should be have to live with love and compassion (which is a thin veneer to mean "accept them onto the land") when they have no inkling of accepting us on our own land? They are conquesting our land, jobs, and reproduction nakedly to erase the white people.
So, why should we have to accept this?
If BLM can riot in the streets, why can't whites? And as we do most things better than any of racial group, if we want to remove the foreigners, why can't we?
And our thought leaders should lead in that direction. Not to pacification and acceptance of diminishment in our own country.
You accept it as a foregone conclusion that whites have to be erased in their own country?
Yeah, I don't want to be from that timeline. In fact, I'll actively work against it. Pieces like this are controlled opposition to pacify what's left of the majority to accept their transition to a minority. It doesn't have to be accepted. It can be rejected harshly. And it should be.
No, actually. What I said is that your description of what happening bears no resemblance whatsoever to reality, and your overheated rhetoric doesn't conceal that fact from anyone with the good sense God gave a grasshopper.
Renn laid out the base reality. You apparently didn't take issue with THAT so I'm going to assume you agree with it.
I simply took the opposite approach that Renn did. Instead of weakly kneeling to be erased into a minority, we have the option to openly resist, band together, and fight it as a group. Like.. every group has done to overcome us.
And you then show up to say that it isn't happening? This is willful idiocy. Intentional subversion. Peak faggotry of unserious person.
I'm sorry, am I supposed to be intimidated because you called me names?
You have offered no support for your contention that this is all part of some grand design to erase white people, simply a lot of hot air and "manly" chest-beating that suggests to me that you would actually be utterly useless in any kind of fight, whether physical or intellectual.
I mean it’s easier to get into an Ivy League school with an “interesting” background. And white men are the only group it’s legal to discriminate against. And we’re told “great replacement” is both A) not happening and B) a good thing. I didn’t reply earlier because “white” really isn’t the point for me. But I have seen with my eyeballs that companies will hire or promote white men more or less only if there are no other suitable candidates available, and that violence against whites is hand waved or denied outright, witness the reaction to the Metcalf stabbing. I think making it about race is a trap, but these are real things.
"Replacement is happening and is good" is the province of a few radical left politicians and fringe terminally online types, and most of the rest of what you're talking about is less the result of anti-white animus and more the province of hangovers from hamfisted attempts to right the wrongs of the bad old days. We're already seeing backlash against affirmative action and whatnot--good night, California can't even get a majority of its people to vote for it--so I hope I may be forgiven for saying that I find apocalyptic "we whites are DOOMED unless we do unto the other races before they do unto us" rhetoric to be the province of grifters and provocateurs.
In Canadian schools (when I was there somewhere in the late 60s to early 70s), we were taught that the US was a melting pot. Now, I don't know the extent to which that was true, but I do know that ideals and self-image have a strong influence in shaping behavior.
I don't think Christianity survives without parochialism. People follow their culture, and mainstream culture does nothing to encourage Christianity. Consequence: Of of my friends from high school and college were born Christian, I'm the only active believer, and that's after a 10-year agnostic period.
If you don't own the mainstream culture, you need a subculture that can serve as a separate point of reference. The Amish, Middle Eastern Christians, and Jews have survived like this for centuries. It was the state of whole church until Constantine.
It's a model that works, and the only model that works under current conditions.
I understand what you are trying to say, but MAGA is NOT whit pride. Its strength in the recent election was largely in the inclusion of Blacks and Hispanics, and Trump's administration has more women in key positions than Biden's ever had. If one insists on finding white pride, look to leadership in the Uniparty. WASPs outnumber women and Blacks even in elected Democrats and RINOs in leadership posts in both the Senate and House.
The white pride examples paraded in the press are mostly low-class neo-Nazi freaks, a true minority. The illegal migrants that MAGA want rid of are the gang members and street people who ugly up our cities. The legal immigrants are for the most part welcomed. They are the ones that want to be Americanized. Indians and and Arabs legal immigrants are mostly well to do, educated, and high-achievers, unlike the radical Muslims, gang bangers, and street people transferees from their origin slums into burgeoning American slums.
I would add though that legal immigrants go heavily leftist and have in group preferences that exclude natives who they may subtly and not so subtly despise. Legal really doesn’t mean wise. Other than that thank you, MAGA really, really isn’t racist, the left just needs it to be.
Looking at other English speaking western countries which still have larger white majorities (Canada, Australia, NZ, UK), suggests going back a few decades demographically would not get us back to high functioning institutions. The very white elites in those countries are largely extractive, basically burning through the capital built by others with little interest in investing in their communities. Incredible housing price manipulation, one of their primary motivations for pushing immigration. While the prospects for younger people decline, they are still expected to celebrate the sense of community, compassion and common purpose that their country pretends to offer them.
I mean nail on the head, at some point Anglo Saxon leadership decided they basically hate Anglo Saxon people. I mean we say “white” but it’s really WASPs and ersatz WASPs of various ethnicities, not even necessarily “white”. Early Gaddafi actually cared more about the common Libyan than our leadership at the time (I know it sounds nuts but he wasn’t always crazy, he pulled a Kuwait early on turning oil wealth into schools, infrastructure, and education). We then decided to rationalize being American as not being instantiated in a culture or people which is why we need “immigrants” (functional slaves) to replace “decadent” Americans. Vivek getting trashed over this was the first sign of an immune system response in a long time.
"The concept of the public interest is effectively dead in America." 100% And from that, I think, flows the importance of increasing the ownership stake one has in his own life. Where we works, where he lives, what he consumes, his culture, everything. You can't outsource it to the "public interest" or mass society. For none exists.
I don't have an overarching strategy, but I have lived in the most diverse county in the United States over the past 30 years. The Christian ethic still holds. Love your neighbor. Work for the benefit of the country/city. There is no magic bullet. A nation that doesn't have a unifying ethic will fall.
If you live in the most diverse county in America, its government and civic life, even its legal system, likely operates on the basis of DEI, which is hardly the Christian ethic.
You are correct. Maybe I wasn’t clear. We as Christians need to live out the Christian ethic. I did not mean that the area has a Christian ethic. I live my life without a Christian ethic. I'm not here to change the world but as a witness for Christ in my words and deeds. I am very involved in my church and my local community. I attempt to preach the gospel and make disciples. This is a very dark area, and it needs the light.
As Yuval Levin said in “Fractured Republic” 📕 we need to let go of the Nostalgia.
“They hearken to a living memory so powerfully present for many Americans as to seem like the natural state of American life. And they suggest that a return to that state—that getting back on that track—should be the goal of American politics.”
He challenges liberals and conservatives equally to draw ✍️ on the nations current resources, using the best IDEAS 💡 from their respective camps.
“An extraordinary number of the most prominent works of social analysis in recent years have followed the same pattern—positing the postwar decades as a standard of excellence against which to assess how America is doing by one important measure or another.”
Page 19
“That time existed. It was not a dream. But it was not the paradise that some now suggest, and it was made possible by a set of circumstances—historical, social, economic, political, and cultural—that are no longer with us.”
Page 19
Liberals bemoan the death of Unions, conservatives the death of society conservative values.
Yuval appeals for us to work locally (Benedict Option?), and find common ground where possible.
Yuval Levin
Fractured Republic
-Renewing Americas social compact in an age of individualism
I appreciate the attitude but oh my gosh is this a dry hole. The best “ideas” of both can only be judged by an external standard (who says what is best?), that NOBODY is prepared to agree on and if they did in any numbers they’d probably be wrong. In the meantime only one group is being asked to make concessions.
Great, now if we can convince the newcomers to stop showing in group preference and adopt this point of view we’ll be fine.
Pluralistic societies can work, as we see in the deeply “unpopular” but weirdly high functioning Austrian-Hungarian and British Empires. Both of which were incidentally more democratic than is commonly supposed. But it worked because if there ever was a conflict between local “norms” and to use the British as an example, English common law, English common law won. That part wasn’t up to a vote.
The problem as I see it, is that every group is allowed to advocate for its interests, even at the cost of others, except for one, and it’s not exactly the one you think. Next, these groups also have cultural attitudes on everything from law and order to social norms, that other groups will find intolerable.
Indians erecting a giant statue of a demon god should bother you. East Asians and Latins voting for more “familiar” forms of local government with attendant corruption should bother you.
Of course my answer will please no one but I believe it’s the only one. Our only real duty is to do what we believe God would wish us to. And it might not be what you think. It might actually be fighting, it might actually be yielding (Jeremiah was called basically a collaborator when he got the word that the invasion was coming and there was no fighting it). But I’m hard pressed to believe it ever entails thinking that idolatry, corruption, and governmental bullying is “just as good” because “America is always changing”.
NB I’m not saying you’re saying this, just that I think we’re in for a rougher ride than you might think.
An issue that is presently with us is illegal immigrants. As a refugee from the Peoples Republic 🇨🇳 of California, I tell my Tennessee neighbors.
We CANNOT allow a two tier system of law enforcement regarding citizens and illegals, which is normative in California.
Victor Davis Hansen was writing ✍️ on this two decades ago in Mexifornia. 📕
There is no money in enforcing the Law on illegals, so California does not unless STATE property is at risk.
In Minneapolis, the prosecutor just declined to charge someone who was vandalizing Teslas. Two tier justice is a pervasive part of places like that.
Hey I have it on good authority that this is normal change America has went through before and my local mall selling Santa Muerte statues is just totally normal. Where would America be without Irish civic corruption, Italian organized crime, German founded socialist parties? Immigration has always totally worked out. NB for anyone taking this too seriously I have immigrant ancestry too however I also recognized that they moved because they preferred living in the society created by my British ancestors.
Excellent post. Rene Girard belongs with Nietzsche in the discussion of ressentiment.
The left relies on a relentless rhetorical sleight-of-hand in discussing pluralism: "Demographic diversity is a fact, THEREFORE you're not allowed to pass laws that reflect any values that we don't like." They go back and forth between fact and value as they see fit.
It goes to deep questions about democracy, liberalism and legitimacy: if there's one atheist kid in a 99% Christian public school, can that kid's parents and lawyers eliminate school prayer for everyone? Liberalism says yes (Engel v. Vitale). And yet, they still try to claim that this is "democratic." Curious!
Right from Day One, this was an issue in the U.S. IIRC, the various non-established religious groups agitated against the then-established churches in the thirteen states. Presbyterians, Methodists, Quakers, Catholics, Jews, etc. may not have agreed on anything, but they all objected to paying taxes to support the state church (Congregationalism in New England, Anglicanism in the mid-Atlantic and South).
The current Supreme Court case on queer books in public elementary schools (Mahmoud v. Taylor) is an interesting case. Muslims, Catholics, etc. all agree that they don't want gender propaganda given to their young children in public schools. This can be overstated - most nonwhite groups still vote majority Dem or supermajority Dem - but occasionally pluralism can be used to achieve conservative ends.
Of course this leads to each side blocking the other. The Leftists overreached with transgender and are now paying the price nationally. DEI is taking well deserved hits.
The nation can no longer modify the constitution, as there can be no 3/4 agreement on anything.
What a thoughtful post, with a solid balance between the descriptive and prescriptive. The issue with those of us who have similar views is that we tend to get squashed in the middle. We are not moderates nor a pretentious third way. We are not very exciting to most. It’s hard to gain clicks and excite people with this view. People think we are completely non-combative but that isn’t always the case.
Thanks, Zack.
All good points. Only thing I'm inclined to disagree on is tolerating the existence of 90-foot Hindu statues. I think it's good and proper to fight these things. I'd go to the mat to fight this in my local community, in a way that I wouldn't over a mosque. Pick your battles. Maybe that means we as a society can't erect any 90-foot statues, which sounds like a good rule to me.
In my estimation the average person has never been built to adjust to social changes as rapid as ours within the span of a single lifetime, especially when those changes come after age 30 or 40. Even most college graduates are this way. So I don't think there's much hope for the median person here. Just try to be significantly better than the median and to be a trustworthy leader who can guide the many people around you that are struggling to adjust, who probably can't do it under their own power.
Maybe spend some time absorbing that meme image: "The world you were born in no longer exists."
E.g. here: https://bit.ly/4jJxdvV
There's no going back. The only way out is through.
I think you and I might disagree on some individual policies, and as a Roman Catholic I believe caring for immigrants and refugees is my religious duty, but I agree with almost everything in your newsletter. Most especially, the disastrous impact of the combination of oligarchic libertarian economics and progressive antagonism toward traditional moral and legal standards.
This country has lost its civic sense of duty and sacrifice. Progressive moral relativism has led to Trumpian nihilism. We must find a way to accept and even celebrate our new diversity while expecting all our citizens, old and new, to put the good of the Republic ahead of their own selfish interests.
Meh. It seems no matter how much of GDP is allocated by the government, how many pages the US Code is, how many governmental functions are assumed by the federal government and concentrated in the executive, "libertarian economics" will always be blamed.
I know right? I’m not even libertarian (if I was English I’d say I was just an old Tory), but I know there’s nothing libertarian about government and industry locked in a mutual Patty Hearst spiral.
I’m Catholic too and don’t think caring for migrants should include having the federal govt spend billions handing out food and housing subsidies to people who just walked across the southern border. There are political, human and practical limits to housing illegal immigrants or asylum seekers etc in hotels in Midtown Manhattan
Don’t you know it’s your duty to seize property at gunpoint from citizens and hand it to foreigners because that’s charity? Repent!
Why should we have to accept that pluralism is here to stay and that Christians have to accept it?
Why should be have to live with love and compassion (which is a thin veneer to mean "accept them onto the land") when they have no inkling of accepting us on our own land? They are conquesting our land, jobs, and reproduction nakedly to erase the white people.
So, why should we have to accept this?
If BLM can riot in the streets, why can't whites? And as we do most things better than any of racial group, if we want to remove the foreigners, why can't we?
And our thought leaders should lead in that direction. Not to pacification and acceptance of diminishment in our own country.
What alternate timeline are you typing from? Because you're not living in this one.
You accept it as a foregone conclusion that whites have to be erased in their own country?
Yeah, I don't want to be from that timeline. In fact, I'll actively work against it. Pieces like this are controlled opposition to pacify what's left of the majority to accept their transition to a minority. It doesn't have to be accepted. It can be rejected harshly. And it should be.
No, actually. What I said is that your description of what happening bears no resemblance whatsoever to reality, and your overheated rhetoric doesn't conceal that fact from anyone with the good sense God gave a grasshopper.
Renn laid out the base reality. You apparently didn't take issue with THAT so I'm going to assume you agree with it.
I simply took the opposite approach that Renn did. Instead of weakly kneeling to be erased into a minority, we have the option to openly resist, band together, and fight it as a group. Like.. every group has done to overcome us.
And you then show up to say that it isn't happening? This is willful idiocy. Intentional subversion. Peak faggotry of unserious person.
I'm sorry, am I supposed to be intimidated because you called me names?
You have offered no support for your contention that this is all part of some grand design to erase white people, simply a lot of hot air and "manly" chest-beating that suggests to me that you would actually be utterly useless in any kind of fight, whether physical or intellectual.
I mean it’s easier to get into an Ivy League school with an “interesting” background. And white men are the only group it’s legal to discriminate against. And we’re told “great replacement” is both A) not happening and B) a good thing. I didn’t reply earlier because “white” really isn’t the point for me. But I have seen with my eyeballs that companies will hire or promote white men more or less only if there are no other suitable candidates available, and that violence against whites is hand waved or denied outright, witness the reaction to the Metcalf stabbing. I think making it about race is a trap, but these are real things.
"Replacement is happening and is good" is the province of a few radical left politicians and fringe terminally online types, and most of the rest of what you're talking about is less the result of anti-white animus and more the province of hangovers from hamfisted attempts to right the wrongs of the bad old days. We're already seeing backlash against affirmative action and whatnot--good night, California can't even get a majority of its people to vote for it--so I hope I may be forgiven for saying that I find apocalyptic "we whites are DOOMED unless we do unto the other races before they do unto us" rhetoric to be the province of grifters and provocateurs.
I live in Portland OR. There hasn't been a violent protest here (BLM or otherwise), in several years. At least to my knowledge.
So you don't think it matters whether the melting pot metaphor is the ideal rather than multiculturalism?
How would you implement a melting pot?
In Canadian schools (when I was there somewhere in the late 60s to early 70s), we were taught that the US was a melting pot. Now, I don't know the extent to which that was true, but I do know that ideals and self-image have a strong influence in shaping behavior.
If we wanted to, same as last time, shut the door for like 40 years.